 | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —John DiRienzo
|
| | | Richard Franks wrote in message ... (...) up (...) much (...) the (...) lines. (...) concept (...) is (...) Read it again (there is more below). Life affirming is good, definitely not evil, and doesn't relate to lawfulness. Regarding neutral... did (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | (...) Bwahahhahahah! That's perfect. If I can engage in some cheap and unnecessary ad hominem commentary: I can't think of any single statement that sums up your approach to these topics than that line right there, John. Thanks for the laugh. -- (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Libertarian stuff (Was: Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]) —Richard Franks
|
| | | | (...) Oki, I got that bit. (...) Neither good or bad, either having no understanding of ones actions, or having no particular alignment to either paradigm. Thats my working definition.. disprove it. (...) Because if you don't know what you are (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
